(The copyright date is 2016 but I haven't seen it or a notice of it before)

"[T]he Basic Property: each language provides an unbounded array of hierarchically structuredexpressions that receive interpretations at two interfaces, sensorimotor for externalization andconceptual-intentional for mental processes. ,,, [invoking Darwin and Aristotle]

"At the very least, THEN, each language incorporates a computational procedure satisfying the Basic Property."[emphasis added]

--Noam Chomsky, *What Kind of Creatures Are We?* Columbia UP, 2016

("Language," of course, refers only to "I-language"; he isn't interested in what is actually said,but only in UG, or Universal Grammar.)

The small book, or extended essay, will then go on in four chapters to integrate his viewsinto an overarching view of human nature (I assume). The first pages are a curious melange ofpassives and gnomic statements, with as usual no acknowledgment that some of his assertions havebeen controversial -- at least this time he cites an evolutionary anthropologist, Ian Tattersall,to support the very late date for the development of language but seems still to insist on a "languageorgan" in the brain that no neuroscientist has ever found a trace of.

But what gets me is the "then" in the quotation above. Is that not a complete begging of the question?

Post by Peter T. Daniels(The copyright date is 2016 but I haven't seen it or a notice of it before)"[T]he Basic Property: each language provides an unbounded array of hierarchically structuredexpressions that receive interpretations at two interfaces, sensorimotor for externalization andconceptual-intentional for mental processes. ,,, [invoking Darwin and Aristotle]"At the very least, THEN, each language incorporates a computational procedure satisfying the Basic Property."[emphasis added]--Noam Chomsky, *What Kind of Creatures Are We?* Columbia UP, 2016("Language," of course, refers only to "I-language"; he isn't interested in what is actually said,but only in UG, or Universal Grammar.)The small book, or extended essay, will then go on in four chapters to integrate his viewsinto an overarching view of human nature (I assume). The first pages are a curious melange ofpassives and gnomic statements, with as usual no acknowledgment that some of his assertions havebeen controversial -- at least this time he cites an evolutionary anthropologist, Ian Tattersall,to support the very late date for the development of language but seems still to insist on a "languageorgan" in the brain that no neuroscientist has ever found a trace of.But what gets me is the "then" in the quotation above. Is that not a complete begging of the question?

As it stands I find the quotation incomprehensible. Unlessit is a definition disguised as a deduction.

That is, I think he says a language interfaces on the one handwith the mind and on the other hand with vocal utterances.

Post by Peter T. Daniels(The copyright date is 2016 but I haven't seen it or a notice of it before)"[T]he Basic Property: each language provides an unbounded array of hierarchically structuredexpressions that receive interpretations at two interfaces, sensorimotor for externalization andconceptual-intentional for mental processes. ,,, [invoking Darwin and Aristotle]"At the very least, THEN, each language incorporates a computational procedure satisfying the Basic Property."[emphasis added]--Noam Chomsky, *What Kind of Creatures Are We?* Columbia UP, 2016("Language," of course, refers only to "I-language"; he isn't interested in what is actually said,but only in UG, or Universal Grammar.)The small book, or extended essay, will then go on in four chapters to integrate his viewsinto an overarching view of human nature (I assume). The first pages are a curious melange ofpassives and gnomic statements, with as usual no acknowledgment that some of his assertions havebeen controversial -- at least this time he cites an evolutionary anthropologist, Ian Tattersall,to support the very late date for the development of language but seems still to insist on a "languageorgan" in the brain that no neuroscientist has ever found a trace of.But what gets me is the "then" in the quotation above. Is that not a complete begging of the question?

As it stands I find the quotation incomprehensible. Unlessit is a definition disguised as a deduction.That is, I think he says a language interfaces on the one handwith the mind and on the other hand with vocal utterances.I consider that obvious.

Yesterday I read the third of the fourth chapters. In what may be his firstattempt ever to integrate his political writing with his linguistic writing,he defends a rather odd definition of "anarchism." His transition from the"What is language?" and "What is thought?" of the first two chapters is lessskilled than what any preacher learns in seminary -- how to make the day'sassigned readings relevant to whichever matter the preacher needs to address.

I went back to try to see the connection -- and didn't. There is, though, a20-page preface (by someone whose name I don't recognize) attempting toclarify the whole thing -- which, however, is far more clearly writtenthan most of Chomsky. (I suspect a competent editor at Columbia UP.)There are a few spots where phrases ensue without evident connection to whatprecedes or follows, and a few verbs and pronouns with unidentifiable subjectsand antecedents, but many fewer than usual. But plenty of hand-waving and "willbe addressed below"s that aren't.

Post by Peter T. Daniels(The copyright date is 2016 but I haven't seen it or a notice of it before)"[T]he Basic Property: each language provides an unbounded array of hierarchically structuredexpressions that receive interpretations at two interfaces, sensorimotor for externalization andconceptual-intentional for mental processes. ,,, [invoking Darwin and Aristotle]"At the very least, THEN, each language incorporates a computational procedure satisfying the Basic Property."[emphasis added]--Noam Chomsky, *What Kind of Creatures Are We?* Columbia UP, 2016("Language," of course, refers only to "I-language"; he isn't interested in what is actually said,but only in UG, or Universal Grammar.)The small book, or extended essay, will then go on in four chapters to integrate his viewsinto an overarching view of human nature (I assume). The first pages are a curious melange ofpassives and gnomic statements, with as usual no acknowledgment that some of his assertions havebeen controversial -- at least this time he cites an evolutionary anthropologist, Ian Tattersall,to support the very late date for the development of language but seems still to insist on a "languageorgan" in the brain that no neuroscientist has ever found a trace of.But what gets me is the "then" in the quotation above. Is that not a complete begging of the question?

As it stands I find the quotation incomprehensible. Unlessit is a definition disguised as a deduction.That is, I think he says a language interfaces on the one handwith the mind and on the other hand with vocal utterances.I consider that obvious.

Yesterday I read the third of the fourth chapters. In what may be his firstattempt ever to integrate his political writing with his linguistic writing,he defends a rather odd definition of "anarchism." His transition from the"What is language?" and "What is thought?" of the first two chapters is lessskilled than what any preacher learns in seminary -- how to make the day'sassigned readings relevant to whichever matter the preacher needs to address.I went back to try to see the connection -- and didn't. There is, though, a20-page preface (by someone whose name I don't recognize) attempting toclarify the whole thing -- which, however, is far more clearly writtenthan most of Chomsky. (I suspect a competent editor at Columbia UP.)There are a few spots where phrases ensue without evident connection to whatprecedes or follows, and a few verbs and pronouns with unidentifiable subjectsand antecedents, but many fewer than usual. But plenty of hand-waving and "willbe addressed below"s that aren't.

Chomsky has never been a very good writer but I think youare offering evidence that he is coming apart intellectually.

I was struck with the possibility (based on your quotation)that he was thinking along the same lines as Franz. Aboutcommunication as opposed to language.

Post by Peter T. Daniels(The copyright date is 2016 but I haven't seen it or a notice of it before)"[T]he Basic Property: each language provides an unbounded array of hierarchically structuredexpressions that receive interpretations at two interfaces, sensorimotor for externalization andconceptual-intentional for mental processes. ,,, [invoking Darwin and Aristotle]"At the very least, THEN, each language incorporates a computational procedure satisfying the Basic Property."[emphasis added]--Noam Chomsky, *What Kind of Creatures Are We?* Columbia UP, 2016("Language," of course, refers only to "I-language"; he isn't interested in what is actually said,but only in UG, or Universal Grammar.)The small book, or extended essay, will then go on in four chapters to integrate his viewsinto an overarching view of human nature (I assume). The first pages are a curious melange ofpassives and gnomic statements, with as usual no acknowledgment that some of his assertions havebeen controversial -- at least this time he cites an evolutionary anthropologist, Ian Tattersall,to support the very late date for the development of language but seems still to insist on a "languageorgan" in the brain that no neuroscientist has ever found a trace of.But what gets me is the "then" in the quotation above. Is that not a complete begging of the question?

As it stands I find the quotation incomprehensible. Unlessit is a definition disguised as a deduction.That is, I think he says a language interfaces on the one handwith the mind and on the other hand with vocal utterances.I consider that obvious.

Yesterday I read the third of the four chapters. In what may be his firstattempt ever to integrate his political writing with his linguistic writing,he defends a rather odd definition of "anarchism." His transition from the"What is language?" and "What is thought?" of the first two chapters is lessskilled than what any preacher learns in seminary -- how to make the day'sassigned readings relevant to whichever matter the preacher needs to address.

I am now in the middle of hearing back-to-back interviews with Al Franken, withWNYC's Leonard Lopate and with Terry Gross on *Fresh Air*, and he talks about"pivoting" -- how the politician has to learn how to answer the question hewants to answer instead of the question that was asked. As a satirist, he hatedwhen politicians did it. Terry immediately had to caution him to stop doing it!

Al is less skilled at giving the same answers verbatim to different interviewers-- as I sometimes heard S. J. Gould do three times on the same day.

I went back to try to see the connection -- and didn't. There is, though, a20-page preface (by someone whose name I don't recognize) attempting toclarify the whole thing -- which, however, is far more clearly writtenthan most of Chomsky. (I suspect a competent editor at Columbia UP.)There are a few spots where phrases ensue without evident connection to whatprecedes or follows, and a few verbs and pronouns with unidentifiable subjectsand antecedents, but many fewer than usual. But plenty of hand-waving and "willbe addressed below"s that aren't.

Chomsky has never been a very good writer but I think youare offering evidence that he is coming apart intellectually.I was struck with the possibility (based on your quotation)that he was thinking along the same lines as Franz. Aboutcommunication as opposed to language.

Vice versa. What's very clear in chapter 1 is that for him, communication is notthe primary job of language -- in fact, communication is rather incidental --but thought is.

Post by DKleineckeI was struck with the possibility (based on your quotation)that he was thinking along the same lines as Franz. Aboutcommunication as opposed to language.

Is traffic opposed to cars? No, certainly not. What I say is that language andcommunication are like vehicle and traffic (and a dictionary the garage ;-)In 1974/75 when I helped a student of linguistics with her Chomsky homeworkI formulated my own theory of language: Language, on the most basic level,is the means of getting help, support and understanding from those we dependupon in one way or another --- and every means of getting help, support andunderstanding may be called language, on whatever level of life it occurs ...Human word language evolves together with the many artificial things we makeand use, words naming objects, and turning natural entities into objects(the latter accounting for much confusion in philosophy). Later on I expandedmy definition. Language may be considered the intelligence of life: workingtogether, coordinated by language, we achieve more than on our own, thesame with less energy, or more with the same amount of energy. I would neverseparate language from communication, as I would never separate walkingfrom leg and feet. Language as tool of forming thoughts goes along with lifein an artificial world where actions can return over a wide circle of thingsand people and more things and more people on us much later - action andreaction are often separated by a considerable time gap, which forces us tothink what me might cause in a remote future by what we do just now.

Post by Peter T. Daniels(The copyright date is 2016 but I haven't seen it or a notice of it before)"[T]he Basic Property: each language provides an unbounded array of hierarchically structuredexpressions that receive interpretations at two interfaces, sensorimotor for externalization andconceptual-intentional for mental processes. ,,, [invoking Darwin and Aristotle]"At the very least, THEN, each language incorporates a computational procedure satisfying the Basic Property."[emphasis added]--Noam Chomsky, *What Kind of Creatures Are We?* Columbia UP, 2016("Language," of course, refers only to "I-language"; he isn't interested in what is actually said,but only in UG, or Universal Grammar.)The small book, or extended essay, will then go on in four chapters to integrate his viewsinto an overarching view of human nature (I assume). The first pages are a curious melange ofpassives and gnomic statements, with as usual no acknowledgment that some of his assertions havebeen controversial -- at least this time he cites an evolutionary anthropologist, Ian Tattersall,to support the very late date for the development of language but seems still to insist on a "languageorgan" in the brain that no neuroscientist has ever found a trace of.But what gets me is the "then" in the quotation above. Is that not a complete begging of the question?

You say it, no 'language organ' has been found in the brain. The forming ofsentences in speaking and writing is now understood as "recursive sequencing"that may be compared to the way we move an arm: a first muscle makes abeginning, a second muscles adds a correction, a third one a furthercontribution, and so on. We have then a similar situation as in vision.Eyes are not just cameras. Our vision is being constructed by at leastthirty areas of the brain that work together in a wonderfully economicalway - for example we see only a tiny spot of our vision field clearly,not larger than the moon or sun in the sky, everything else unclearly,blurred, and yet we have the impression that we see a clear and brillantpicture of the entire space or landscape we have before our eyes (Leonardoda Vinci knew that, he understood the roles of attention and knowledgeand emotion in perception which he encoded in his Mona Lisa painting,an allegory of seeing). Speaking is equally complex as vision. Singlegrammars fail. Each one might grasp an aspect of language, but none cancover everything. We should develop each grammar in its own right, andthen study how they co-operate in the process of "recursive sequencing."Chomsky ruled for too long a time, blocking other views on language.